-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Metacritic are doing a "Must-Play Games" badge for games rated 90 or higher
- Thread starter Gravity Insanity
- Start date
I wonder if anything can be done to get them to walk this feature back, considering how it makes absolutely no sense when comparing most games that are reviewed across multiple platforms. We already have to face that MC's weighting system and separate platform review aggregation is flawed to begin with. Now this label re-enforces its flaws?
Metacritic didn't need ANOTHER reason, as to why Opencritic owns its ass.
Metacritic didn't need ANOTHER reason, as to why Opencritic owns its ass.
What's the difference between a 90% and 89% game? I think a 5-star scale would be much better, with 4 stars and above being must-try.
Sorry everyone, but I value Metacritic scores.
Sorry Metacritic but only I decide what I 'must play', regardless of score.
Sorry Metacritic but only I decide what I 'must play', regardless of score.
I remember the days when review scores meant nothing. Good days..
DA: I won the award but we all know it belongs to Shadow of Mordor
It is fine. There are a lot of games every month and so little time. The easiest way to filter potential mediocre/boring/low quality games are review scores. Try all must play games and if there is nothing fun then you can check lower score games or just better check last year/month must play games. Easy.
At most I have time to play one or two games per month so its better be the best one.
At most I have time to play one or two games per month so its better be the best one.
Yeah, sure, let's make gamers melt the servers even more when a console gets a 90 must play game while the other console gets a 89 score game and suddenly it's not a must play. Review scores matter only to the people who are too lazy to read the actual reviews, and unfortunately also became a great tool to get unusually high amount of attention to your site (see Jim Sterling's random 1s and 2s to otherwise well received games).
2014 GOTY: "Gotta pick something, I guess."
Shadow was my goty, too.
That's an arbitrary bullshit mark. Every game is a must-play to someone and no game is a must-play to everyone. Opinions, tastes, how do they work ?
They want you to treat their rankings exactly how you shouldn't. A wrtied opinion about a game, a critic, stays the most valuable compared to scores.
They want you to treat their rankings exactly how you shouldn't. A wrtied opinion about a game, a critic, stays the most valuable compared to scores.
This. Identical games having different metacritic scores has always been odd. This just reinforces how weird it is. It's also a little odd that a massive AAA game launching to the market with 100 critic reviews to an 89 aggregate misses the cutoff for a "must play" while the niche or smaller game that gets 15-20 lifetime reviews at a 90 aggregate gets the badge of honor. Time to go back to the drawing board and think of something a little more fleshed-out.
It is sad but the precedent was set ages ago. The obligatory threads with people betting on MC review scores/ranges before a game comes out don't help either IMO but they still occur. I don't understand them.
I don't like when things are boiled down to numbers or constructs. I have a friend who adores Mass Effect: Andromeda, bought it on her own as she was just becoming a gamer based on a random positive review she was forwarded. She played it and absolutely love it and that led her to the first trilogy which she loved as well. All these experiences because she read an entire review, weighed out her reaction to another player's nuanced written reaction, and took a gamble.
I don't share as favorable of a take on that game but we have had cool conversations about it that were real palpable opinions exchanged that she wouldn't and I wouldn't have had had she looked at a score and said "naw". I don't like Rotten Tomatoes for this reason either. It's a lazy way to develop a sense of taste in my opinion. You should find trustworthy people you don't necessarily agree with all the time but approach things in a similar way and have similar preferences and determine value propositions based off that. That would be an optimum way to take part.
It's actually really, really tough to break the 90+ barrier nowadays.
Exclusives wise:
PlayStation 4 ~ Bloodborne, God of War, Persona 5, Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted 4.
Switch ~ Breath of the Wild, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Super Mario Oddssey.
Xbox One ~ Forza Horizon 3.
Exclusives wise:
PlayStation 4 ~ Bloodborne, God of War, Persona 5, Shadow of the Colossus and Uncharted 4.
Switch ~ Breath of the Wild, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Super Mario Oddssey.
Xbox One ~ Forza Horizon 3.
I mean, you're the one "focusing intently" if you think this is what they're suggesting.
It's no secret devs get extra bonuses for scores over 90 or whatever. Take a look at the review threads for big games to see what I mean about the unhealthy focus on scores themselves.
"I only play 'must play'-games!"
That's what devs and games need, while review sites put down their score. /s
That's what devs and games need, while review sites put down their score. /s
There is a difference between bad, decent, good, very good and excellent.
Not sure about that.
A game can have issues on platform A that are simply not present (or less relevant) on platform B.
When things like that happen (say, the infamous Bayonetta PS3 conversion) I see nothing wrong in average scores reflecting those differences.
(though, please note I'm definitely NOT a fan of aggregators)
Nah. 90+ is its own category.
Having mostly 9/10 reviews it means getting more 9.X or 10 reviews than 8.X or lower.
A majority of 8/10, and more 9/10s and 10/10s than 7/10 or lower can net a game an 85. The scale isn't linear - the difference between 85 and 90 is huge in terms of reviews.
Metacritic needs to die, or to completely change.
- game on one platform 90 (must play)
- same game on different platform 89 (not must play)
- some publications weight much more than many others
- Stephens sausage roll 90 must play (9 reviews); Nier 88 (101 reviews). Where s barrier to entry, like 30 reviews or something?
- game on one platform 90 (must play)
- same game on different platform 89 (not must play)
- some publications weight much more than many others
- Stephens sausage roll 90 must play (9 reviews); Nier 88 (101 reviews). Where s barrier to entry, like 30 reviews or something?
It's also that a late release on another platform might have added dlc content or further refinements to improve it's reception.
Alternatively, positive WoM might improve the general perception and give it a chance at higher scores.
Nah. I played both, and enjoyed Dragon Age: Inquisition far more. So much, that I spent 182 hours on the main game, and 231h in total with the DLCs included. Whereas I dropped Shadow of Mordor after getting only six trophies from it. That being said, I probably wouldn't enjoy DA:I nowhere near as much now, that the open world fatigue has set in.
Or we could let gamers make their own mind on what constitute a worthwhile game on Metacritic :)
I personally value EDGE much more. I agree with them 90% of the time.
Gamifying review averages to an even greater extent just takes away the content of games criticism to an even greater degree
Who needs nuance when we can put everything into a number?
It also makes it easier for people to hound any outliers, and it changes the reviewers perspective when reviewing a game
It means some reviews may score a game higher or lower than they actually believe the game should score, because they believe others will mark the game too high or too low and want to use their review to manipulate the meta to what they believe the score should truly be
Who needs nuance when we can put everything into a number?
It also makes it easier for people to hound any outliers, and it changes the reviewers perspective when reviewing a game
It means some reviews may score a game higher or lower than they actually believe the game should score, because they believe others will mark the game too high or too low and want to use their review to manipulate the meta to what they believe the score should truly be
well this is going to lead to a healthy and non aggressive discussion online over the entertainment we consume!
Me too!
Review scores can be useful beyond confirmation bias and console warz, and everything on that list is solid. The copy is what matters, but numbers do get your attention - which is great for games and genres I wouldn't pay attention to otherwise.
I know, and I thought it was clear when I quoted them by name. However, Certified Fresh means nothing, it's only invented, neutral jargon to distinguish between critical hits and the rest of the market. Metacritic already does that with the "Universal Acclaim" tag under the score. Now they're adding a very clear and select term, which intentionally or not, by telling us what's a "must", it also tells us what's not. That's wrong to me, and it could be easily avoidable adopting the same "Universal Acclaim" now in use, less lesive for those works not getting there.
I think they're doing this because of the criticism; and because various media outlets are fighting back against review scores.
They're taking back power by use of force here and are looking to strongarm publishers and media outlets into supporting them, by further increasing the influence of review scores as the only metric that matters.
Make no mistake, this is an entirely self-serving and malicious act. Metacritic know exactly what they're doing here; they want publisher bonuses to be based on their rankings and they want users to just look at their website review scores and ignore the review text. There's valuable bribe money and ad revenue to be won here!